Parties request further clarification over discovery in UFC Antitrust case

June 21, 2017

After a June 1, 2017 conference with the Judge Peggy Leen to discuss outstanding discovery issues, the attorneys for the fighters and the UFC are at it again over what was said at the hearing.

On June 20th, Plaintiffs’ attorneys sent a letter to the Court requesting clarification on “a number of issues arising out of the Court’s order.” The Plaintiffs sought clarification from the following:

“Do Third Parties that produced documents before or just after the hearing count against the 5 document subpoenas allowed to Plaintiffs?” Plaintiffs have informed the UFC that they were intending to pursue documents from Golden Boy Promotions, Haymon, DiBella Entertainment, Inc., Top Rank, Inc. and Gary Shaw. Plaintiffs had served documents subpoenas on 17 third parties. The reason for the clarification is because they were to receive documents from Leon Margueles and Jakks Pacific prior to the hearing.The UFC claims that the two count as part of the maximum 5 issued by the Court. Obviously, the Plaintiffs contend that they do not. The UFC notes in its memo to the Court that Plaintiffs did not bring up this production to the Court.

“Has the Court Authorized Plaintiffs to Depose Matt Hume?” Hume is a part of OneFC as Vice President of Operations and Competiton for the company. According to Plaintiffs, counsel for OneFC will not accept a subpoena and since the company is headquartered in Singapore, lack jurisdiction. The UFC did not oppose this request and takes no position. It should be noted that both Plaintiffs and the UFC have agreed to document production from OneFC which was not counted against the 5 allowed by the Court.

“Can Plaintiffs Pursue Discovery from Mercer?” The fighter pay study commissioned by the UFC’s attorneys to be done by Mercer is at issue here. Plaintiffs would like to “resume the discovery initiated in mid-2016.” The UFC wants this counted as a third-party request. It notes that some of the documents requested by Plaintiffs were designated as work product by the UFC in spite of the previous court ruling requiring certain documents produced by Mercer to be produced. In addition, it is requesting clarification regarding a deposition of Mercer. The UFC had offered to stipulate to the authenticity of documents produced by Mercer in lieu of a CR 30(b)(6) deposition. But, according to the UFC, Plaintiffs never responded.

Payout Perspective:

The parties were ordered to meet and confer over outstanding discovery issues after the court conference but there is still conflict between the parties. Laid out by the parties, it’s clear there might be a legitimate gripe. It usually not a good look to be seeking clarification just after a hearing to go over discovery issues again especially when the overarching theme of the process is for the parties to cooperate. These types of outstanding issues (i.e., what counts as 5 third-parties, etc.) must be discussed by the parties in Court in front of the judge. There are some issues that you might not be able to think of while standing in court, but that’s why there are usually more than one (likely three or four) attorneys at the hearing so they can pass along notes to lead counsel to come up with questions to clarify. Likely, Judge Leen will hold a teleconference but will none too pleased that the parties are coming back.